Skip to content


Date of Decision: 16.07.2013 Vs. State of Punjab and Another - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citation
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided On
AppellantDate of Decision: 16.07.2013
RespondentState of Punjab and Another
Excerpt:
.....versus state of punjab & another ....respondents coram:- hon'ble mr.justice tejinder singh dhindsa. present: mr.manu k. bhandari, advocate for the petitioner....tejinder singh dhindsa, j. (oral) the petitioner was appointed as a gram sewak under the rural development and panchayats department, state of punjab in the year 2000. the instant writ petition has been filed impugning the order dated 07.09.2011 (annexure p-2) passed by the director cum special secretary of the respondent-department, whereby the petitioner has been dismissed from service on the basis of conviction by the competent court in case fir no.23 dated 05.04.1992. it has not been disputed by the counsel appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner has availed of the remedy of a statutory appeal against.....
Judgment:

CWP No.14927 of 2013 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.14927 of 2013 Date of decision:

16. 07.2013 Tarsem Singh .....Petitioner versus State of Punjab & another ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA.

Present: Mr.Manu K.

Bhandari, Advocate for the petitioner....Tejinder Singh Dhindsa, J.

(Oral) The petitioner was appointed as a Gram Sewak under the Rural Development and Panchayats Department, State of Punjab in the year 2000.

The instant writ petition has been filed impugning the order dated 07.09.2011 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Director cum Special Secretary of the respondent-department, whereby the petitioner has been dismissed from service on the basis of conviction by the Competent Court in case FIR No.23 dated 05.04.1992.

It has not been disputed by the counsel appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner has availed of the remedy of a statutory appeal against the order of dismissal under the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1970.

Counsel would however, contend that the petitioner has sought information under the provisions of Right of Information Act, 2005 and in response thereto, the file notings as regards his statutory appeal having been processed have been furnished to him and the same have been Kaur Harjeet 2013.07.19 17:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.14927 of 2013 -2- placed on record as Annexure P-6.

Counsel would argue that a perusal of the office notings at Annexure P-6 would make it apparent that a view is being taken by the State Government against the petitioner.

Be that as it may, file notings cannot be construed to be a final order against the petitioner.

Such notings at best are only inter departmental communications.

In the light of such facts, it would not be appropriate for this Court to go into the legality and correctness of the order of dismissal dated 07.09.2011 at this stage.

Accordingly, the present writ petition is disposed of as pre-mature.

Directions are issued to respondent No.1 to pass a final order on the statutory appeal dated 29.08.2012 (Annexure P-3) that the petitioner had preferred against his order of dismissal.

Let such final decision in the light of a reasoned and speaking order be taken within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

Disposed of.

(TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA) th 16 July, 2013 JUDGE harjeet Kaur Harjeet 2013.07.19 17:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organize Client Files //